Sydney Morning Herald political and international editor

The Chinese government was unhappy with Australia's new Prime Minister: Tony Abbott in October had embraced its great rival Japan as "Australia's best friend in Asia".

A senior Chinese official privately asked Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop for an explanation in Canberra in November. She disarmed the Chinese by laughing it off: "Tony does that all the time in cabinet. He puts his arm around everyone, everyone's his mate, everyone's his best friend."

When everyone is your best friend, no one is your best friend. It was a clever way of deflecting the protest that lurked behind the question.

Advertisement

But Abbott did say it of Japan, and he has not said the same thing of any other nation in Asia. It still stands.

Then Bishop herself set out another ranking of countries, again bumping China from the top spot, saying in January "our single most important economic partner is, in fact, the United States."

But surely China is now Australia's biggest trading partner? Two-way trade with the US was $54 billion in 2012-13, less than half the $131 billion with China.

Bishop, however, widened the picture to include not just trade but investment. Using this measure allowed her to assert: "So in respect of who is our 'best friend' in economic terms, it is undeniably the US."

So the Abbott government so far has set out two different hierarchies for Australia's foreign relations, and China isn't in top spot in either.

A new Labor senator looking to make a name for himself in foreign affairs, Sam Dastyari, has picked up on this.

Dastyari, formerly the general secretary of the NSW Labor Party, sees a troubling trend, a turn away from the great rising power.

China dominated the world economy till about 1840. Just as the Middle Kingdom returns to the centre of world power, is Australia about to marginalise itself?

Bishop's "assertion that we should prioritise the US at the expense of our relationship with China is a worrying and unnecessary development", Dastyari wrote in The Australian Financial Review.

Her comments "have left me and many others concerned that the Abbott government's pivot could lead to a deterioration in one of our most important diplomatic ties. Publicly ranking our diplomatic partners is quite unnecessary".

Dastyari doggedly pursued this line in Parliament last week. He homed in on the government's reaction to two important developments. One was a provocative move by China and the other by Japan. He wanted to illustrate that Australia had reacted harshly to one and mildly to the other, demonstrating bias.

China's provocative act was unilaterally declaring in November it was suddenly going to enforce an enlarged air defence identification zone over international waters.

It doesn't sound very dangerous, but it's highly contentious. It forces aircraft to give prior notice or risk challenge by China's air force. It was declared directly over territory also claimed by Japan in a fast-escalating territorial dispute.

Japan's provocative act was when its Prime Minister Shinzo Abe made an official visit to pay his respects to Tokyo's Yasukuni Shrine a month later.

Again, this doesn't sound very dangerous, but it inflamed opinion in Beijing and Seoul because it is the official shrine to Japan's war dead, including the war criminals who led Japan's invasions of China and South Korea.

An official Japanese prime ministerial visit is a predictable affront to both because it implies an unapologetic jingoism. In this case, too, Australia criticised the provocation, but it did so sotto voce, behind closed doors.

"I don't mind us rebuking China," Dastyari says, "but we should be equally saying something to Japan about the Yasukuni Shrine."

But while Beijing would agree with Dastyari, he's dwelling on it much longer than China itself. There is no sign of serious, real problems in the relationship with China.

In calling Japan "Australia's best friend in Asia", Abbott was merely repeating a formula that John Howard used when he was prime minister. Australia's ties with Beijing survived and thrived.

Bishop's point that the overall economic relationship with the US, including investment, makes the US, not China, Australia's economic best friend, may be cute but it's not wrong.

And Dastyari is wrong to claim her statement is in any way "at the expense" of relations with China.

As Howard demonstrated, and as Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard also demonstrated, it's entirely possible to improve relations with all the great powers at once.

In fact, it would be a betrayal of the national interest not to. And this is exactly what Abbott will seek to do as he embarks on the three-nation trip to the region he announced on Monday.

He will travel to China, Japan and South Korea. Relations with all three are in solid shape.

Abbott's government has already concluded a free-trade agreement with one of these three, South Korea, and is making good progress on the other two.

Yes, with China and Japan in parallel. China has moved beyond Bishop's rebuke, or any of the other perceived Abbott government slights, as all countries do when they are getting on with the big issues.

The whole concept of a "zero sum" in Australia's world affairs, where progress with one country can only happen at the expense of another, is sandbox stuff.

The most recent events actually support the idea that there can be constructive competition, that when Australia improves ties with one, this can lead others to ratchet up their efforts in response.

The trade negotiations with China and Japan both appear to have gained impetus from the success of the deal with South Korea.

As for publicly ranking countries, Dastyari is right. It's gratuitous and juvenile.

But if the Labor Party detects an Abbott "pivot" away from China, it's more upset about it than Beijing itself.

Labor should wish Abbott a successful trip. In the national interest.

Peter Hartcher is the international editor.

40 comments

Peter, stop making excuses for Mr Abott nothing in his demeanour reflects anything associated with Mateship, in fact it is the complete opposite. Your beloved polls which you continually used against Julia Gillard are speaking again and what they say is Mr Abbott is on the political nose. No Prime Minister in my lifetime has lost the support of the electorate in the opinion polls so quickly as Mr Abbott has. The electorate now is seeing through him, he is not our mate he is a Bogan. I have watched polls for years and in recent times when they turn like they have for Mr Abbott they don't turn back. The destruction he has inflicted upon us in six months exposes him as just another politician who is not full and frank and he will pay a political price for that.

Commenter

Rob

Location

Gymea Bay

Date and time

March 04, 2014, 6:05AM

What is in the national interest is rarely the underlying motivation of our main parties. Regardless, it will be interesting to see how Abbott goes with the China visit. Initially Rudd's diplomatic and language skills were expected to see him take our relationship with that country to new highs, but we all know how that ended. Conversely, Gillard probably had her biggest successes in foreign affairs, which was a surprise. Abbott is a dark horse in this respect. As for Dastyari, I reckon he is spot on the money with ranking our friendships. Why would you do it? Dastyari is a really interesting politician who Will likely be a future star for Labor. One of the few politicians with big ideas.

Commenter

Flanders

Date and time

March 04, 2014, 7:15AM

"Maaaaate - you bloody beauty".It's just a friendly way to greet people.

Commenter

Howe Synnott

Location

Sydney

Date and time

March 04, 2014, 8:27AM

We'll soon see if you're right, Rob, with the re-run WA senate election coming up. The only other Federal election since last September was the by-election for the seat of Griffith, vacated by Kevin Rudd. Labor retained it, but there was an almost unprecedented swing (if only tiny) to the government. I'm no Abbott supporter but those waiting for an end to his government shouldn't count chickens yet.

Commenter

alto

Date and time

March 04, 2014, 8:43AM

I suggest that the LNP Govt issues a statement of support for the people of China who have been victims of a terrorist attack at a train station which killed 29 people and injured more than 140. President Obama, leaders of UK and France have done so. Generalissimo Putin busy on the Western Front has also done so.

Commenter

Dr B S Goh

Location

Australian in Asia

Date and time

March 04, 2014, 10:26AM

I applaud any gov't in being virtuous and standing up to what you believe in. Howard and Rudd had the moral high ground when criticising China on human rights.

However, Bishop's comments are a plain failure of logic. The only way US is still has the largest private sector investment in Australia is because alot of Chinese investments are restricted in Australia, for example the Huawei NBN ban. The other reason that the US has aby far the more advanced financial servicers sector. US investment banks acquiring assets in Australia and profiting from it does nothing to help the average Aussie except the few bankers on high street. China's investments in Aus mining infrastructure and agriculture for example actually builds local economies.

Commenter

GH

Date and time

March 04, 2014, 11:47AM

Spot on, he is a bogan. This is an unsophisticated Government. The ugly Australian is back.

Commenter

Barry.

Date and time

March 04, 2014, 12:43PM

I am surprised that Australian MSM has not picked up why China's reaction to Australia's criticism of it ADIZ was so strong. Does our DFAT people not first check at Wikipedia and try to understand the history of ADIZ in that part of NE Asia? and advise our FM carefully?

USA first set up the ADIZ unilaterally in 1950 as part of the Korean War. Then Japan UNILATERALLY extended its ADIZ in 1972 and again on 25 June 2010 and ignored Taiwan and China protests and extend them close to the borders of China and Taiwan. So the anger from China when Australia called up the Chinese Ambassador is simply because Australia is simply not fair dinkum on ADIZ in that of the World. I think the civil servants in DFAT has a lot to answer on this.

Commenter

Dr B S Goh

Location

Australian in Asia

Date and time

March 04, 2014, 1:21PM

Dr Goh, your comments are spot on. Anyone who looks at the map of Japan's ADIZ can see that it extends to about 300 miles off the coast of MAINLAND China's most important Eastern border, it extended that far unilaterally in 1972 just to avoid touching.the 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone rule. China's ADIZ is only barely over uninhibited rocks such as the Diaoyu islands, which China/Taiwan is also laying claims to, China's ADIZ is nowhere near any of the main islands of Japan. Anyone with an unbiased view can see who is the aggressor in this case.

Commenter

abc

Date and time

March 04, 2014, 2:19PM

Sam Dastyari is spot on in highlighting the troubling trend of Abbots government, it's blatant bias in the way it treats Japan and China is double standard and bordering on hypocrisy.